Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Ninth Circuit BAP Overturns Summary Judgment Due to Misapplication of Issue Preclusion Under Ohio Law
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Ninth Circuit BAP Overturns Summary Judgment Due to Misapplication of Issue Preclusion Under Ohio Law
Westhuizen v. Sky (In re Westhuizen), No. 22-1133 (9th Cir. BAP June 2, 2023)
TRANSCRIPT
Hello to all the lawyers, fiduciaries, students, and bankruptcy fans out there. Today we are talking about In re Westhuizen.
On June 2, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit overturned a bankruptcy court entry of summary judgment for nondischargeability under Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(6). The panel ruled that the bankruptcy court erroneously applied issue preclusion under Ohio law.
This case originated from a dispute between two friends, who both were involved in the breeding and showing of Birman cats. Their relationship eventually deteriorated because of competition and a purported violation of a breeding contract.
The plaintiff contended that the debtor started to discredit and defame her through derogatory emails and online reviews about her cat breeding business and medical practice. This prompted the plaintiff to file an action in Ohio based on claims for defamation, tortious interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff approximately $300,000 by default judgment.
Thereafter, the debtor moved to California and filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy. In response, the plaintiff initiated a nondischargeability adversary proceeding under Bankruptcy Code §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(6) and moved for summary judgment on the section 523(a)(6) claim for willful and malicious injury. The bankruptcy court determined that issue preclusion applies and bars relitigation of the state-court claims. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment.
On appeal, the issue under consideration was whether the bankruptcy court had erred in awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff based on issue preclusion. The bankruptcy appellate panel determined that the bankruptcy court failed to assess whether the issues were "actually and directly litigated," a requirement under Ohio law. Accordingly, the panel reversed.
As always, I’ll put a link to the opinion in the show notes. I am Reno Fernandez, and I represent bankruptcy trustees, receivers, assignees, and other fiduciaries. Thank you.
View all episodes
By Reno Fernandez
5
11 ratings
Westhuizen v. Sky (In re Westhuizen), No. 22-1133 (9th Cir. BAP June 2, 2023)
TRANSCRIPT
Hello to all the lawyers, fiduciaries, students, and bankruptcy fans out there. Today we are talking about In re Westhuizen.
On June 2, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit overturned a bankruptcy court entry of summary judgment for nondischargeability under Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(6). The panel ruled that the bankruptcy court erroneously applied issue preclusion under Ohio law.
This case originated from a dispute between two friends, who both were involved in the breeding and showing of Birman cats. Their relationship eventually deteriorated because of competition and a purported violation of a breeding contract.
The plaintiff contended that the debtor started to discredit and defame her through derogatory emails and online reviews about her cat breeding business and medical practice. This prompted the plaintiff to file an action in Ohio based on claims for defamation, tortious interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff approximately $300,000 by default judgment.
Thereafter, the debtor moved to California and filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy. In response, the plaintiff initiated a nondischargeability adversary proceeding under Bankruptcy Code §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(6) and moved for summary judgment on the section 523(a)(6) claim for willful and malicious injury. The bankruptcy court determined that issue preclusion applies and bars relitigation of the state-court claims. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment.
On appeal, the issue under consideration was whether the bankruptcy court had erred in awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff based on issue preclusion. The bankruptcy appellate panel determined that the bankruptcy court failed to assess whether the issues were "actually and directly litigated," a requirement under Ohio law. Accordingly, the panel reversed.
As always, I’ll put a link to the opinion in the show notes. I am Reno Fernandez, and I represent bankruptcy trustees, receivers, assignees, and other fiduciaries. Thank you.